Commodity ETFs Suck – 2012 Edition

Another year has come and gone, which means another year’s worth of data comparing three long-only commodity ETFs (USO, UNG, and CORN) to a strategy of just buying the December futures contract and rolling it annually. No surprise to us – the ETF’s woefully underperformed yet again, by an average of nearly -13%.

How can $2.6 billion invested in these funds be so out of touch on this? And willing to pay a double digit penalty each year for their commodity exposure? Just to make sure you are reading the table correctly – if you had invested in the CORN ETF at the beginning of the year, you would have made 5.57%. If you had invested in the December Corn futures contract on the same day, and rolled it to the December 2013 contract at the end of November, you would have made nearly16% more. Meaning the ETF lagged its benchmark for the year by 16%! (Disclaimer: past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results).

Maybe it is all a matter of timing? The ETF companies do (sort of) warn investors that the products are intended to track the daily price of the front month futures contract for each commodity. But how many investors actually realize that the ETF can track the daily price but NOT TRACK the monthly, quarterly, or annual price by anything close to an acceptable tracking error?

Intuitively, it seems like something which tracks the daily price change should end up tracking the annual price change. And I’m sure the marketing folks at these ETFs said the product has to track the daily price as closely as possible – as that is what people see on the news each night and what they expect – to hell with the annual numbers.

And we would see daily tracking equal annual tracking if the ETF invested in stocks or bonds or currencies or really anything besides futures markets. (and, incidentally, that is why the GLD ETF doesn’t suffer the same underperformance, because it doesn’t get its exposure via futures, but via real gold in a vault). Futures markets throw a monkey wrench into things. Crude Oil has 12 different contracts per year, for example, and most of the time the change in one contract is not the same as the change in another. Today, for example, March crude oil futures were up $1.28, while the September contract was up just $0.97 per barrel.

All of these different contract months and different price moves within them can make investing in futures confusing. Indeed, it is not suitable for all investors – as the required disclaimer for those soliciting futures account reads. And that is sort of the underlying beef here from a registered futures firm. How many people are investing in these ETFs without understanding the risks those futures markets present? How many investors really understand contango and the cost of carry and that futures contracts have a finite life – when they can get access to commodity ETFs with just a click of a mouse in their stock trading account (no futures disclaimers required)?

We don’t think it is a very large number – and for that reason once again would like to shout at the top of our lungs to all $2.6 Billion worth of money trading these commodity ETFs:

Commodity ETFs suck for long term exposure. If you think corn, crude oil, or natural gas is going up in the next 3 to 18 months – DO NOT use the ETFs to get exposure – they are horrendous at tracking the long-term performance of the market.

And we’ll whisper this also: why get long only commodity exposure when you could get long and short commodity exposure via managed futures and benefit should markets rise or fall?

Search

Social Media

DISCLAIMER

Forex trading, commodity trading, managed futures, and other alternative investments are complex and carry a risk of substantial losses. As such, they are not suitable for all investors. You should not rely on any of the information as a substitute for the exercise of your own skill and judgment in making such a decision on the appropriateness of such investments.

The entries on this blog are intended to further subscribers understanding, education, and - at times - enjoyment of the world of alternative investments through managed futures, trading systems, and managed forex. Unless distinctly noted otherwise, the data and graphs included herein are intended to be mere examples and exhibits of the topic discussed, are for educational and illustrative purposes only, and do not represent trading in actual accounts. Opinions expressed are that of the author.

The mention of specific asset class performance (i.e. +3.2%, -4.6%) is based on the noted source index (i.e. Newedge CTA Index, S&P 500 Index, etc.), and investors should take care to understand that any index performance is for the constituents of that index only, and does not represent the entire universe of possible investments within that asset class. And further, that there can be limitations and biases to indices such as survivorship and self reporting biases, and instant history.

The performance data for various Commodity Trading Advisor ("CTA") and Commodity Pools are compiled from various sources, including Barclay Hedge, RCM's own estimates of performance based on account managed by advisors on its books, and reports directly from the advisors. These performance figures should not be relied on independent of the individual advisor's disclosure document, which has important information regarding the method of calculation used, whether or not the performance includes proprietary results, and other important footnotes on the advisor's track record.

The mention of general asset class performance (i.e. managed futures did well, stocks were down, bonds were up) is based on RCM’s direct experience in those asset classes, estimates of performance of dozens of CTAs followed by RCM, and averaging of various indices designed to track said asset classes.

The mention of market based performance (i.e. Corn was up 5% today) reflects all available information as of the time and date of the publication.

The owner of this blog, RCM Alternatives, may receive various forms of compensation from certain investment managers highlighted and/or mentioned within the blog, including but not limited to retaining: a portion of trade commissions, a portion of the fees charged to investors by the investment managers, a portion of the fees for operating a fund for the investment managers via affiliate Attain Portfolio Advisors, or via direct payment for marketing services.

Managed Futures Disclaimer:

Past Performance is Not Necessarily Indicative of Future Results. The regulations of the CFTC require that prospective clients of a managed futures program (CTA) receive a disclosure document when they are solicited to enter into an agreement whereby the CTA will direct or guide the client’s commodity interest trading and that certain risk factors be highlighted. The disclosure document contains a complete description of the principal risk factors and each fee to be charged to your account by the CTA.

Archives

RCM Alternatives

Disclaimer

Forex trading, commodity trading, managed futures, and other alternative investments are complex and carry a risk of substantial losses. As such, they are not suitable for all investors.
The mention of market based performance (i.e. Corn was up 5% today) reflects all available information as of the time and date of the publication.